Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coach slams new NCAA Regionals format

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gh
    replied
    For those who don't subscribe to the magazine (turkeys! :P ), a PDF of Part 1 of our Regional discussion in the magazine (from the November/December issue) is now posted to the front page

    Leave a comment:


  • Gleason
    replied
    Re: I agree.....but

    Originally posted by HigherEd
    4hurdles:

    While I agree that DI coaches have a hard time agreeing on things you might want to recall that they voted something like 290-18 for a revised regional plan. It was turned down by the NCAA Cabinet. I also agree that LSU would rise to the top whether we ran on a grass track. But I think a point is missing here. What we are really speakin about is a huge meet management issue. Just one example. There will be 4 flights of 12 discus throwers. That event will take 5 hours to run. Have you ever been to a track where the conditions changed as the day goes on. Lets say that the first flight has a great quartering wind, ideal for long throwing. Then the second flight has no wind as it dies down. The last flight has a headwind as the afternoon weather changes. That is not an equal playing field. In a normal setting which is shorter in duration the chance of huge changes in conditions is minimized. In a lengthy competition the changes increase. At my home track the Pole Vault, which will last 4 hours in the new system would go from a headwind to a tailwind. That directly impacts the competition.
    I agree.

    What is the problem that the 2-division Regionals will address?

    I realize that it is impossible to have every event in every region to be identical. This seems to be addressed by the four "wild cards."

    I realize that in theory a potential scorer (eight places now score) could be eliminated. In fact, who is the most egregious example of a potential scorer who was eliminated in the regionals? I don't count false starts & DNFs.

    Although I've lived in California since 1960, I concede that the West Region is generally the weakest. My solution is to move West Virginia to the Mideast Region, move Missouri to the Midwest Region & move Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and the portion of Texas that is south of New Mexico to the West Region.

    IF this is done, fairness dictates that at least half of the West Regional meets be held in states that aren't in the Pacific Time Zone. This seems to be a good idea if change is needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gleason
    replied
    Re: I agree.....but

    Originally posted by HigherEd
    4hurdles:

    While I agree that DI coaches have a hard time agreeing on things you might want to recall that they voted something like 290-18 for a revised regional plan. It was turned down by the NCAA Cabinet. I also agree that LSU would rise to the top whether we ran on a grass track. But I think a point is missing here. What we are really speakin about is a huge meet management issue. Just one example. There will be 4 flights of 12 discus throwers. That event will take 5 hours to run. Have you ever been to a track where the conditions changed as the day goes on. Lets say that the first flight has a great quartering wind, ideal for long throwing. Then the second flight has no wind as it dies down. The last flight has a headwind as the afternoon weather changes. That is not an equal playing field. In a normal setting which is shorter in duration the chance of huge changes in conditions is minimized. In a lengthy competition the changes increase. At my home track the Pole Vault, which will last 4 hours in the new system would go from a headwind to a tailwind. That directly impacts the competition.
    I agree.

    What is the problem that the 2-division Regionals will address?

    I realize that it is impossible to have every event in every region to be identical. This seems to be addressed by the four "wild cards."

    I realize that in theory a potential scorer (eight places now score) could be eliminated. In fact, who is the most egregious example of a potential scorer who was eliminated in the regionals? I don't count false starts & DNFs.

    Although I've lived in California since 1960, I concede that the West Region is generally the weakest. My solution is to move West Virginia to the Mideast Region, move Missouri to the Midwest Region & move Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and the portion of Texas that is south of New Mexico to the West Region.

    IF this is done, fairness dictates that at least half of the West Regional meets be held in states that aren't in the Pacific Time Zone. This seems to be a good idea if change is needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gleason
    replied
    Re: I agree.....but

    Originally posted by HigherEd
    4hurdles:

    While I agree that DI coaches have a hard time agreeing on things you might want to recall that they voted something like 290-18 for a revised regional plan. It was turned down by the NCAA Cabinet. I also agree that LSU would rise to the top whether we ran on a grass track. But I think a point is missing here. What we are really speakin about is a huge meet management issue. Just one example. There will be 4 flights of 12 discus throwers. That event will take 5 hours to run. Have you ever been to a track where the conditions changed as the day goes on. Lets say that the first flight has a great quartering wind, ideal for long throwing. Then the second flight has no wind as it dies down. The last flight has a headwind as the afternoon weather changes. That is not an equal playing field. In a normal setting which is shorter in duration the chance of huge changes in conditions is minimized. In a lengthy competition the changes increase. At my home track the Pole Vault, which will last 4 hours in the new system would go from a headwind to a tailwind. That directly impacts the competition.
    I agree.

    What is the problem that the 2-division Regionals will address?

    I realize that it is impossible to have every event in every region to be identical. This seems to be addressed by the four "wild cards."

    I realize that in theory a potential scorer (eight places now score) could be eliminated. In fact, who is the most egregious example of a potential scorer who was eliminated in the regionals? I don't count false starts & DNFs.

    Although I've lived in California since 1960, I concede that the West Region is generally the weakest. My solution is to move West Virginia to the Mideast Region, move Missouri to the Midwest Region & move Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico and the portion of Texas that is south of New Mexico to the West Region.

    IF this is done, fairness dictates that at least half of the West Regional meets be held in states that aren't in the Pacific Time Zone. This seems to be a good idea if change is needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • krip2nite
    replied
    4Hurdles
    The only think that I see will happen with Texas A&M, Florida, LSU and others such school is that the will have more dual meet like they did b4 to qualify more of their athletes to get them to the big dance. When people start chasing time the others start giving them away.

    Leave a comment:


  • HigherEd
    replied
    I agree.....but

    4hurdles:

    While I agree that DI coaches have a hard time agreeing on things you might want to recall that they voted something like 290-18 for a revised regional plan. It was turned down by the NCAA Cabinet. I also agree that LSU would rise to the top whether we ran on a grass track. But I think a point is missing here. What we are really speakin about is a huge meet management issue. Just one example. There will be 4 flights of 12 discus throwers. That event will take 5 hours to run. Have you ever been to a track where the conditions changed as the day goes on. Lets say that the first flight has a great quartering wind, ideal for long throwing. Then the second flight has no wind as it dies down. The last flight has a headwind as the afternoon weather changes. That is not an equal playing field. In a normal setting which is shorter in duration the chance of huge changes in conditions is minimized. In a lengthy competition the changes increase. At my home track the Pole Vault, which will last 4 hours in the new system would go from a headwind to a tailwind. That directly impacts the competition.

    Leave a comment:


  • 4hurdles
    replied
    division 1 coaches will never agree, someone will always complain "it isn't fair to me."

    Here's my solution.

    1. Get out of your office and recruit.
    2. Get out of your office and coach.

    The overwhelming majority of the best kids will make it to nationals regardless of how you structure it. And the overwhelming majority of good coaches will find a way to "get it done" regardless of how you structure it.

    Fair does not mean equal. If you still don't like it, then leave your school for a school that you think has some magical advantage. Any "advantage" of success was earned by establishing a great program that continues to attract great athletes. (of course you have to be good enough for them to want you.)

    In our sport every kid on your team has a lane or a flight every weekend. That can't be said for the 10th man on a basketball team. So the very nature of our sport provides ample opportunity for anyone worthy of making it to NCAAs to show it.

    I just get SO tired of all the back and forth. Paint lines down main street at the North Pole and I bet the LSUs and the Texas A&Ms will find a way to have the best kids on that day.

    STOP CRYING AND WORK HARDER

    Leave a comment:


  • ndamix
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    But this sorta makes it sound like officiating has long been a province of the emerging senior citizen, which, of course, just isn't true; no way to check it, but it's my impression that average age of an official has gone up by 20-odd years (at least) in the last 40.
    I guess I'm on the low end of that 20-odd years variable since I'm still not eligible for my AARP card for at least another 10 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    But this sorta makes it sound like officiating has long been a province of the emerging senior citizen, which, of course, just isn't true; no way to check it, but it's my impression that average age of an official has gone up by 20-odd years (at least) in the last 40.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Re: a great point

    Originally posted by HigherEd
    I wasn't meaning it would be more appealing to one over another. If you read my post carefully I was discussing trying to get younger people involved. I have found being a collegiate meet director for 30 years that it is actually easier to get the "over 55" crowd to officiate since they have more financial independence and more free time. But at some point all of my age group will have to slow down and get out. What will we do then? In working at each regional since its inception the ratio of officials over 55 to under 55 is probably 80/20 with one year 90/10. That 80 or 90 percent will have to step aside some day.
    What you say makes a lot of sense. Until very recently, I would have said that there should be nothing to worry about. The people in your age group who slow down and get out will be replaced by the next generation of "over 55" folks who will now have more financial independence and more free time, right?

    Not so fast. Unless the current financial sitaution turns completely around (something I wouldn't count on), a lot of the people who were contemplating retiring in the next few years may find themselves having to work longer, and some who are already retired may have to go back to work. I've spoken to a number of friends in the past week who were contemplating retirement, but who now say they don't know when they'll be able to afford to do that. There are surely many people in that boat, some of them potential track officials.

    Hang in there as long as you can. Everyone appreciates the service of those of any age who do officiate.

    Leave a comment:


  • ndamix
    replied
    Re: a great point

    Like Lonewolf, I have a lot of hats & shirts to show for my years of officiating and I haven't officiated nearly as long as he has.

    As one of the younger officials on the scene (I'm 44), I happen to do roughly between 20 - 30 meets a year @ all levels (youth, HS, collegiate, & the USATF variety meets) throughout the country. With sons in both college and middle school (who competes in youth track) and my daytime job (which allows me to do my 'real job' :wink: ), I'd wager I'm paying roughly between $4K - $8K per annum (according to my tax returns) to do these meets. So I guess I'm still waiting on the 'get rich from officiating' ship to come in. :wink: :lol: :lol:

    Compared to other sports folks my age or younger may be involved as officials, I would have to say I'm in the losing $$$$ category as well. In light of that statement, I'd have to say things have changed in that category since I've become involved in the sport as an official as Lonewolf can attest to.

    While it may not be so prevelant @ the national level, particularly college/HS meet directors are realizing the importance of providing some type of compensation (be it an honorarium/lodging) to attract/retain compotent officials to work their competitions. With the economic situation changing, this sport has to realize that you're not going to attract folks my age & younger with the "love for the sport" slogan. It's just not going to work.

    This is an area of the sport that can no longer be ignored as we see many of the core officials on the national scene age gracefully. As much as I'd love folks like Lonewolf and others to stay on the scene forever, the reality of that is that it won't. The sport's powers-that-be must figure out a way of attracting/retaining our younger officials to insure athletes competing in these various competitions are able to maximize their efforts in an equitible & safe manner.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nathan Taylor
    replied
    New NCAA Qualifying procedure

    I am in full agreement with Barry Harwick's comments on this subject in every way, shape, and form and want to thank him for thaking the time to state this position so completely. I would much rather maintain the inequities of the previous system than move to this rediculous new system. Comparatively, the problems were minimal. That we will now be forced to take an athlete 1500 miles to take one jump or one throw with nothing but advancement at stake makes a travesty of competition in our sport. In the 100/200/HH advancing to two semi-finals of 8 and then cutting the qualifiers to 12, eliminating head to head competition, is incompatable with the things that are great about our sport. Why not just run those events in sections on time? Obviously, I'm kidding. Cornell has had 16 athletes make the NCAA Championships in the past 2 years. This is a major accomplishment for an Ivy League school. Almost all of these athletes would have made the meet regardless of the qualifying senario. BUT not ALL. The past Regional meets have been great track meets with great competition in each and every event with athletes going after it full tilt in every event. That concept has now been completely eliminated.

    Who in the world would want to come and watch a meet like this? Top to bottom there will be no event worth watching. There will be no final's in any event. Imagine the top 12 in the 1500 standing on the track looking at each other trying to figure out why they are running. Field event athletes will withdraw from the competitions as soon as they know they are in the top 12. It will absolutely remove the incentive to compete. Generally, schools and athletes will have a week off before the Regionals, participate in the rediculous new qualifying system and then take another week off before the Nationals. Maybe the incentive to participate in the final would be for some glorified practice situation but I doubt it otherwise there will be no serious competition for nearly a month.

    As a head coach, the financial burdens are a unpredictable enough as it is. This new system will ONLY drive up costs dramatically and add to logistical complications. Chasing marks has been reinstituted.

    You'll have to go a long way to convince me that these new rules will do ANYTHING positive for our sport, our schools, our teams or our athletes.

    I have been under the impression that each school got only 1 vote per gender. Cornell emphatically votes against this new advancement proceedure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    It would be great if the under-40 set were able to officiate more, but I would rather they stay in the 'participant' phase of their life (be a husband-wife-mother-father-wage-earner) than the officiator stage of life. I only officiate at HS meets now, but I'm sure I will branch out more as my wrinkles deepen. That's sort of the way it should be. Pay back as you age; pay in when you have the chance.

    Leave a comment:


  • HigherEd
    replied
    Re: a great point

    Originally posted by tandfman
    Originally posted by HigherEd
    "Hey, bud, would you like to get involved in officiating with me. You can show up to the track at 7:00am, pull the tape measure through the discus for 6 hours, stand out in the hot sun all day, then if you are lucky get a free meal from the host institution and not get paid a penny"
    Why should that be more appealing to older people than to younger ones?
    I wasn't meaning it would be more appealing to one over another. If you read my post carefully I was discussing trying to get younger people involved. I have found being a collegiate meet director for 30 years that it is actually easier to get the "over 55" crowd to officiate since they have more financial independence and more free time. But at some point all of my age group will have to slow down and get out. What will we do then? In working at each regional since its inception the ratio of officials over 55 to under 55 is probably 80/20 with one year 90/10. That 80 or 90 percent will have to step aside some day.

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    Re: a great point

    Originally posted by polevaultpower
    People my age also realize that officials/referees in just about every other sport out there get paid (some well, others it just covers the gas, but most are not losing money to do it).
    Interesting surmise, Becca. I assume your " not losing money" reference is to officials in other sports. If you include T&F I am definitely in that minority who are losing money officiating. It just happens that I signed my 2007 Federal Tax Return today. My accountant says It cost me $9258 to officiate track meets last year.. and I am a Scrooge who travels pretty vanilla.

    But I sure have a lot of hats and shirts.

    I am not complaining. No one held a gun to my head. Just for your info.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X